Is Philosophy an aristocratic vocation?
The only philosophers I have known to be poor are Diogenes, Marx, and Nietzsche. Nevertheless, none of them bothered to work. Diogenes lived with the alms of his contemporaries, Nietzsche was supported by his mother and sister, and Marx was very lucky to have Engels working for him.
In a time when there is no money for philosophizing, is it possible to work and at the same time become a good thinker?
Although I think modern vocations are killing our brains, I want to hear what others have to say on this topic.
Thank you.
In a time when there is no money for philosophizing, is it possible to work and at the same time become a good thinker?
Although I think modern vocations are killing our brains, I want to hear what others have to say on this topic.
Thank you.
Comments (16)
I suspect what you mean is "good philosophical thinker". Otherwise you have scientists, engineers, mathematicians,. . . . .
I think this is an ideal time (in the West) to be a thinker, be informed, and be well-read, easier to achieve now than ever before, I would have thought. But I am not sure what counts as a "good thinker" I suspect this is open to multiple interpretations.
Certain pursuits were fashionable in certain eras; poetry, for example, used to be one of the most popular and influential art forms. Anachronistic now. People used to faint in the street at the appearance of an opera singer. Also defunct. Philosophy? Not really fashionable so it's appeal is limited. But there's significant revivals in schools of thought like Thomism, stoicism, Platonism, existentialism, etc. The hard part is not time and money - the hard part is gaining a good reading of key texts. A lot of people can claim to have read Heidegger or Nietzsche, but how many of them have understood what they have read and have acquired a useful reading of the text?
Quoting Eros1982
What would be an example of this, from your perspective? My father started work in 1936. He worked six days a week and did 60-hour weeks. Is it your contention that the type of work we have today has intrinsic properties that sap our ability to focus after hours? Or is it more a case of after-hours recreation being dominated by social media and distractions that unsettle our focus?
There is a pretty big trend towards eschewing wealth and status in philosophy, and instead choosing to live a life of ascetic discipline and relative isolation. This existed in the Pagan West, but was obviously a significantly greater theme in Christian philosophy. It also shows up in Sufism and in the thought of India and China.
Certainly, many philosophers came from the upper classes, or at least families of some means, but this is because these were generally the only people who were educated. They weren't necessarily "aristocrats" though. Epictetus was a slave for instance.
Particularly after Christian monasticism starts and the Church becomes a path to education, there are people who were not from families of means. Nicholas of Cusa's father was a ferryman, for just one example. Those who were of means often renounced them, in many cases taking oathes of celibacy and poverty.
So to your point:
The monastics did not share the Pagan attitude towards labor. Everyone worked menial tasks. It was considered to be good for humility and meditative. You get a lot of influential thinkers out of the Egyptian desert who has to struggle as subsistence farmers and rope makers, basket weavers, etc.
You also have a lot of very influential clergy, and later, as monastic orders grew, full time administrators. Saint Augustine for instance had a full time administrative/political role that he complains about in several places, and yet his corpus also spans tens of thousands of pages. There are several examples like this.
That said, obviously, space and time helps. I would imagine that the tasks of the monastics did not stop them from becoming very learned and commiting much time to thought because of the way they approached their work and used it as part of the meditation and prayer. Likewise, the many clergy philosophers did fairly philosophical work as part of their job, preparing for councils, preparing sermons, etc.
I would guess that "worldly affairs" tend to be more of a drag than work per se.
I used to be a cleaner and a cook in my twenties. Those were very productive years for me (I completed two MA degrees and published three books of fiction). Then, ten years ago, I started working for the NY State (for more money and benefits), and I don't recognize myself anymore. I try to stay in the loop, but have become a very-very slow writer.
I opened this discussion to get an idea whether office work and philosophical/creative life are compatible. I am not sure whether this slugishness in my case is related to my job, or as I am becoming older and isolated, I find less willingness to focus on things. I am 42 now, working on the same book for the last four years. I am even admitted to a PHD program in Philosophy, but I don't know if I am able to complete it.
Just wanted to see how others are combining work and creativity. (I am almost deaf, also, and I don't think that I can teach.)
I do think that repetitive office work can be bad for your mental health. Although I think most people manage to work around this with other activities and work life balance.
I am an example of someone who has never done any kind of office work. Even admin, its like a phobia of paperwork. Although that is probably due to my dyslexia. My work doesnt require a lot of thinking and repetitive mental procedures. Its more a case of I do it without thinking because I learnt how to do it years ago. Also the thinking, or working out that I need to do is by rule of thumb, or worked out in drawings. This means that most of the time my mind is doing almost nothing. Just day dreaming, thinking about the meaning of life, my creative pursuits, family members and friends. What vegetables Im growing, what Im going to make for diner etc.
I have friends who have stressful and demanding office and managerial jobs and I can see the toll it takes on them. Although, I think that provided they dont become exhausted, or stressed and they have other pursuits and interests which balance this out and provide a release, or physical exercise. They can manage the situation.
I had the opportunity to study, think, and judge different branches of philosophy for a while. I am living on the luxury that mainly my father and I gathered. I was politely fired, telling me that they do not have enough funding, while they do! So I gradually fell into a dead end, so-called deep depression. The story is long. And now I am at peace discussing things with individuals.
I need time alone, and no thing but my mind, to do the work of philosophy. Usually I need the words of other philosophers, but then this is just time spent together with no thing but our minds.
So time with only words and thoughts - that seems like something that is free for even the poorest slave in prison (Epictetus, Boethius). However, free time for theorizing is not something one who is surviving, or who is responsible for the survival of others (family, co-workers, customers and clients), can often afford.
However, I do think you can quick launch yourself on a moments notice into a deep philosophical issue. One minute wondering where the mustard is and the next understanding how Parmenides would say that mustard cannot be. Or you say hand me the red thing and as it is handed to you ask the other person how did you know what I wanted? I found myself practicing philosophy in short moments like this all during the years I focused on work and family. Philosophy never leaves you, like a scar from a disease - once a philosopher always a philosopher.
But really, thats no way to really do it. And we need to study other philosophers, spending hours at times fixed on a single issue. Since it takes money to pay for this time, and money to find teachers, there is a sort of upper middle class baseline to more truly be a philosopher.
But I think in the end, today, many working/ low-middle class people can make enough free time for themselves to do philosophy. And today, there are so many cheap resources readily available online, that, with probably less effort than some of the most aristocratic philosophers of the past, one could develop a deep and complex philosophical experience. Although almost no one could properly do this without some schooling.
But last, I do think the the rigid structure of academia has made it more difficult than ever before to be recognized as a deep thinker - you need a doctorate, and a fellowship, and to publish influential works that you debate and present widely - then, maybe, your written work might first be recognized as resembling something of the vocation of philosophy. Such recognition only comes from within an upper middle-class aristocracy.
That said, I do certainly think that because philosophy takes a bit of a 'rock star' to make much money outside of tenure track positions, we are almost certainly losing out on some incredible thinkers and thoughts in public life.
A passing comment on something mentioned earlier in the thread: I do not think a family hampers deep thinking in any way. It has exponentially fertilized my mind-garden. And given me a live-in sounding board/s
Well said! :wink:
Nietzsche bothered to work ( he was a professor) until his severely ill health made it impossible to continue teaching. Until the 20th century the great majority of notable philosophers worked outside of academia. But whether one does philosophy within an academic institution or outside of it, I would say that how much time they need to carve out to write and study depends on how original their ideas are. Indeed a passion for philosophy when I was still in high school, and know that in order to articulate my ideas effectively I would need to create a lifestyle which zealously protected my flexible free time. I found a way to make ends meet working outside of academia while carving out a minimum of 5 hours a day to pursue philosophy. I have maintained this pattern for the past 40 years. The older I have gotten the easier it has become to write and the more productive I am. I think this is because I know my work better, having created and refined a vocabulary and concepts to draw from.
Since at least Plato philosophy and leisure have been seen to go hand in hand.
There aren't many jobs that don't place a premium on the completion of specific tasks, so it's hard to find a job where you can just think things through, try to resolve contradictions and make sense of things, and then move to the next topic. I'm a lawyer, and comprehending, analyzing, debating, writing, persuading and doing many things that require the same skill set as philosophy, but it is not, alas, philosophy.
I'm not sure if all vocations kill people's brains. In fact, it sounds like when you had a particularly low intellectually challenging job (cleaning and cooking), you were at your creative best. Maybe your current job isn't the best for you, stressing you and draining you. I get that going back to being a cook might not pay the bills and you're stuck doing what you have to do, but just repeating back to you what you said in your posts: You used to be creative before you took this job, not jobs generally destroy your creativity.
There have been only two instances in my life in which I spent time studying philosophy: As a senior in college (1958) I took an upper level class in the subject, and as a young officer in the USAF a few years later I read Sartre's book while stationed at an isolated airbase. The class left no positive impression - I found it boring - but existentialism shaped my life forever.
( I was a meteorologist, then after a period of time in grad school, became a math professor, retiring in 2000. I have been married since 1962 and have a daughter who is nearing retirement. So I have done a lot of creative "thinking", just very little in philosophy, except for a tad in the philosophy of mathematics.)